--On Friday, July 25, 2003 11:58:18 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
<peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> Larry Rosenman writes:
>
>> I disagree STRONGLY with what you are saying here. What harm does it do
>> to add the ABILITY for a port to use a ABSOLUTE DT_SONAME?
>
> We can discuss adding the ability, but I'm against enforcing it by
> default.
>
>> I belive that the issue is not broken systems, but broken practice.
>
> No, the issue is precisely that someone is proposing to break reasonable,
> useful practice to accomodate broken systems. No one is claiming that
> absolute sonames make the system more featureful or useful. In fact, it
> was admitted that it would have the reverse effect. The only argument for
> absolute sonames that was brought forth was that some older systems have
> security holes that can be worked around in this manner.
For an example of ADDING to the usefulness, UnixWare has no ld.so.conf, or
ldconfig equivalent. For ALL my PostgreSQL apps, I either need to specify
-R/usr/local/pgsql/lib
on the EXECUTABLE build, or make sure there is a GLOBAL LD_LIBRARY_PATH
environment
variable set.
The absolute DT_SONAME will fix that issue on THIS platform, which is why
the ABILITY
of an INDIVIDUAL port to set an absolute DT_SONAME would be useful.
LER
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749